Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Jim F Date: Oct 2, 2010 2:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cliff Hucker posted one-star review for Hunter Seamons

I agree on the reviews. I rarely write them, and when I do, I almost never give any star reviews. Music is too subjective for any of that.

While I often enjoy reading people's personal tales from the evening, they usually don't offer much in the way of musical detail or audio quality. Besides, half the time when somebody says something is "totally sick," I find I won't even like it that much.

That said, there are certain reviewers, or reviews themselves, that are often very encouraging and will get me to listen. But a review itself is pretty far down on my list of reasons to listen to something, it often has much, much more to do with what I'm in the mood for hearing.

One of the things I like the most about reviews is the way the archive shows recently reviewed items, I use it probably as much as the TDIH section. It often provides a good reminder to pull something out that you haven't listened to in a while.

Anyway, for some reason this got me thinking about 1/15/79. Did anybody matrix that, I need to look that up. When those early 79 boards came out a year or so ago I was pretty pumped. Then I found I liked the aud's better in most cases, like 1/15. There are some good matrix versions of a few of them, though. But "rediscovering" the early 79 auds is really what started turning me into a real AUD slut.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Oct 2, 2010 2:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cliff Hucker posted one-star review for Hunter Seamons

You know, I find that the average of all reviews works well; when I first got here I ONLY went for 5 star shows, ignoring what any one said about them individually, but at the top of the show, if more than five reviews were "in", and it was basically "five star ave" for the show, I went for it...I ignored anything that was 4 or less, on ave, and it worked really well.

Basically, the five star ones were all "good quality" (I am a snob), and for the early era, it was a nice and easy way...then, later I went back to determine if I missed any "gems" obscured by low review scores and found universally, I hadn't (again, to a real snob for music quality, independent of it being a great show).

So, what it taught me was the ratings will be highest for good recordings, and that works well for my approach. Esp for the early era when sets were so similar it doesn't really matter much if instead of all 100 shows I have only 70, if you follow. I don't need more shows, really.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Jim F Date: Oct 2, 2010 11:41pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Cliff Hucker posted one-star review for Hunter Seamons

Yeah that makes sense. Reviews are important to me, but still pretty low on the list of reasons for me to listen to something. I don't need any reason at all to DOWNLOAD something other than "I need more shows." But when it comes to actually LISTENING to Reviews do factor in.

It all just depends. For instance I'm not in the 80's/90's/Brent Era camp, but you can find really positive reviews for lots of those shows. So I'm not necessarily going to listen to something just because a lot of people like it.

Also, reviews regarding sound quality are rather moot points in this realm, 99% of the time all you have to do is just stream a song or two to decide how you feel about the sound quality.

And in days past, a setlist didn't hold as much info as we have now. Now we not only see the song list, but the timings as well, which also factor in for me. I tend to like reviews that highlight specifics, like how this version of such and such is unique because of this or that.

This kinda reminds me of some pot website I recently saw where people enter in information about price and quality found in their area. I don't smoke anymore, but I was reading about my area, and there were people who were giving information that really screws up the averages. One guy might say 100 an ounce, another 800. They might list the quality, they might not. Either way it all goes into factoring the average.